Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, there is often, but not always, good reason for a purpose clause in a Bill. In this case, the reason is compelling. I am sure

22 Oct 2003 : Column 1628

that my noble friend has not moved the amendment as a gesture; there is a need for a purpose clause. If the Bill is to be properly understood now and in future, it must make clear that it has the two distinct purposes to which my noble friend referred. Its aim is to speed up existing extradition procedures with countries outside the European Union and also to include in English and Scots law the European Union framework agreement already accepted by the Government.

As my noble friend said, in its preamble the framework states that it will lead to the abolition of extradition and its replacement with a system of surrender. The Bill abolishes extradition and introduces a system of surrender. It also improves extradition with states outside the Union. Surely it should say so. The Short and Long Titles do not state that. My noble friend suggested that they are misleading; they are. There must be a purpose clause. I hope that the Government will agree to that; that would do them no harm and make for clarity in future. I support the amendment.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have come to the opposite conclusion. Everything that could be said in favour of the amendment ought to be said in speeches, not spelt out in the Bill. Many Bills come before the House of which people observe that certain matters ought to be stressed. That is right. The purposes spelt out in the amendment are entirely appropriate, but that is not a matter for the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment to a Division, because it would be counter-productive.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I shall briefly support my noble friend Lady Anelay on the amendment. When we debated an identical amendment upstairs in Committee, the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said that he would reflect on what we said. Although he held out no great hopes of agreeing with our proposal, he nevertheless made clear that he would reflect on it. He said that he believed it important that the Bill's purpose be made clear.

The amendment is important and a purpose clause justified in this case because this is a major Bill that makes substantial change to existing law. On Second Reading, I had the temerity to suggest that it was difficult to say that this is merely a Bill to simplify the Extradition Act 1989 when it extends to many clauses and pages and is far longer than the Act that it claims to simplify.

In two vital ways, the Bill changes the law for category 1 countries, in that it does away with the requirement for the Secretary of State to have an executive role in returning those for whom extradition has been asked; and because it does away with the rule of dual criminality, which has always been accepted. A Bill as fundamental as that should make clear in its purpose clause what it does, which is as my noble friend Lady Anelay described.

Does the Minister have any real objection to including the clause? In particular, does she agreeas, it appears, it was implicitly accepted in Committeethat the words of the purpose clause, whether or not it

22 Oct 2003 : Column 1629

is necessary, accurately reflect what the Bill does? If I am right about that, is there any harm in having that written into the Bill?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment, but I must say that I am sorry that we must start the debate in this way, with the Government being accused so boldly of being misleading. Nothing could be further from the truth. Noble Lords will know that both in the other place and in Grand Committee the Government have strenuously defended our position and been open and frank about the purposes for which the Bill is to be used. There has been no attempt to mislead, hide or cover our purpose.

I must endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said and thank him for the clarity and succinctness with which he outlined the purpose of this part. Unsurprisingly, I also agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. I refute the charge made in its entirety. The framework decision cleared scrutiny in both this House and another place well before the Bill was even introduced. At every stage, the Government explained that the framework decision and the European arrest warrant would be implemented by Part 1 of the Bill and have ensured that the way in which the Bill transposes the provisions into United Kingdom law is clear. There has been no secret there either: the link between the Bill and the framework decision is transparent.

It is important that we get the Bill right, because it will govern the law in the United Kingdom; as all noble Lords know, the framework decision has no legal force.

We believe that the Long Title of the Bill

"to make provision about extradition",

is clear and accurate. Extradition is about the transfer of a wanted fugitive after due judicial processa definition which applies equally to Part 1 of this Bill as much as it does to Part 2 and, for that matter, to the Extradition Act 1989.

If I may say so, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, seems somewhat preoccupied with the term "surrender". I believe that term was also used by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly said, it is a term used in the framework decision, but for the purposes of this Bill and our system in the United Kingdom we believe that it is clearer and more accurate to refer consistently to extradition throughout the legislation. The Bill is about extraditionthe process of sending back wanted criminals to face justice after due judicial process. It is simply wrong to claim that the Bill puts in place surrender arrangements which somehow deviate from that.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned, we dealt with this matter in passing in a different context in Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill. I urge the noble Baroness and noble Lords opposite not to press the amendment. As my noble friend Lord Filkin promised, we reconsidered the matter. We considered whether it had merit and we came to the conclusion that that which we have now expresses the truth of the

22 Oct 2003 : Column 1630

situation and is clear, honest and straightforward. Therefore, we do not think that there is any need to amend further. I ask the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.

4 p.m.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I perfectly understand the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. The Liberal Democrats made their position clear throughout Grand Committee and spring no surprises on me. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is deputising for the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who is the Liberal Democrat spokesman on the Bill but who is unavoidably absent. I accept that he has taken the proper course in saying that he will not speak to each and every group of amendments.

I am grateful for the support of my noble friends Lady Carnegy and Lord Carlisle of Bucklow regarding the need for a clear statement of purpose. The Minister said that the Government preferred to refer consistently simply to extradition and that they have been clear and open about what the Bill is about. The Government pepper the Bill with references to surrender. We simply seek greater clarity. Later we shall discuss government Amendment No. 308, which seeks to insert the European framework list on the face of the Bill. Subsection (3) of the new clause in that amendment refers to the surrender procedures between member states. So in a sense we are at one on how we consider that the framework list should operate. However, we believe that we need clarity. As my noble friends have said, we believe that a purpose clause is needed. I wish to test the opinion of the House.